EA Exec: Games Aren't "Mass Market" Yet
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And in some alternate universe, the way EA is steadily headed towards the cliff turns out to be a viral marketing stunt for their reimagining of Lemmings: Corporate Edition.
How are they going to water down their games any further at this point?
Well, that's the unique value. The exact, scientifically-determined number we're worth to them. >.>Genocidicles said:
Oh good, because I really needed more justification for my decision to not buy products from EA anymore. -_-
It seems like EA is seeing big markets that DON'T play games ( probably for reasons...) and saying "hey! look at all these people not playing our games! We need to throw more games at them and they'll surely give us all their moneys!"
Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved on to saying something like "Hey! People like food, right? Let's shove a gameboy into all the meat, and embed apps onto the vegetables! People will love us for that, right?! RIGHT?!"
It's pretty sad, really.
EA, you guys have millions of people who ALREADY know you exist, and would buy your games if they weren't consistently moneygrubbing, rushed, low quality, anti-consumer, DRM using shit. Maybe you should, you know, solidify your existing consumer base who are growing wise to your bullshit instead of trying to herd in a new gang of lemmings to scam with your bullshit.
Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved on to saying something like "Hey! People like food, right? Let's shove a gameboy into all the meat, and embed apps onto the vegetables! People will love us for that, right?! RIGHT?!"
It's pretty sad, really.
EA, you guys have millions of people who ALREADY know you exist, and would buy your games if they weren't consistently moneygrubbing, rushed, low quality, anti-consumer, DRM using shit. Maybe you should, you know, solidify your existing consumer base who are growing wise to your bullshit instead of trying to herd in a new gang of lemmings to scam with your bullshit.
Can someone take away EA's guns so they can stop shooting themselves in the foot? Cause at this point there should be nothing left but a stump
Ah, EA. Pioneer in 'broad appeal' game development, i.e. making games so generic and/or ripped off from current popular titles. With the justification that there's lots of people that like CoD, so that's obviously a huge market. Except that people who like playing CoD already have CoD. The idea that you can also make money if you make a game on a modest budget for a niche audience that is more likely to buy your game (because other companies aren't 20 making nearly identical games every year) never seems to occur to them.
And now that that strategy has send them down the toilet, they double down and declare that the problem is that they aren't appealing to a broad enough audience yet. Or maybe they're just hoping to get a whole new customer base that they haven't pissed off yet.
Prediction: EA will make watered down barely-games, most TV users won't bother because they prefer watching TV. The fraction of TV viewers that does become a customer will not compensate for the loss of their previous gamer audience, who leave because the new 'games' are tailored to people who don't play games.
And when their next CEO leaves in disgrace, EA will conclude that the problem is that they're still catering to too small audience, and will move into the food industry, because that's a customer base of 7 billion people who regularly use food. EA will try to muscle into this market by focus-testing for the most popular foodstuffs wordwide, and then create meals that use the top-10 most popular in a single meal, because that way their choclate-rice-chicken-cheese-burger with ham and ice cream will have the broadest possible appeal. Salt, peper and any other spices or conditiments will be sold as separate DLC.
And now that that strategy has send them down the toilet, they double down and declare that the problem is that they aren't appealing to a broad enough audience yet. Or maybe they're just hoping to get a whole new customer base that they haven't pissed off yet.
Prediction: EA will make watered down barely-games, most TV users won't bother because they prefer watching TV. The fraction of TV viewers that does become a customer will not compensate for the loss of their previous gamer audience, who leave because the new 'games' are tailored to people who don't play games.
And when their next CEO leaves in disgrace, EA will conclude that the problem is that they're still catering to too small audience, and will move into the food industry, because that's a customer base of 7 billion people who regularly use food. EA will try to muscle into this market by focus-testing for the most popular foodstuffs wordwide, and then create meals that use the top-10 most popular in a single meal, because that way their choclate-rice-chicken-cheese-burger with ham and ice cream will have the broadest possible appeal. Salt, peper and any other spices or conditiments will be sold as separate DLC.
I'm not sure I understand what he means. They want to sell games that are actually ran by a "smart" TV? What do you control them with, the remote? Does every TV manufacturer make their own crappy controller? Can I play "Tapped Out" by prodding my TV in the future?
If they want a bigger market for simpler games, why not back Ouya or something instead?
If they want a bigger market for simpler games, why not back Ouya or something instead?
Every single major jack-of-all-trades store (Target, Wal Mart, ect.) has massive game sections. These sections of the store dwarf the books, and mre recently, CD sections of the store. New, hot games are being advertised on TV. Almost everyone on the damn planet owns a console in some way shape or form. How are videogames NOT mass-market?
Really? I can walk into a Target and grab a (probably shitty) game right off the shelf on my way through checkout.
If games don't hold mainstream appeal right now they will very soon. It's inevitable as the generations who grew up with video games supplant the previous generations who didn't; with or without your shitty TV apps.
If games don't hold mainstream appeal right now they will very soon. It's inevitable as the generations who grew up with video games supplant the previous generations who didn't; with or without your shitty TV apps.
So while TV is hemorrhaging viewers to internet based streaming services and increasingly larger numbers of young adults don't even own one, EA looks at TV and says "Yes, I want that."
Not to mention that gaming releases are outstripping even movies in terms of revenue.
Not to mention that gaming releases are outstripping even movies in terms of revenue.
Traditional Television (cable/satellite): Sixty bucks a month gets you your choice of hundreds of new episodes of shows. Even if you only watch an average of half an hour a night, and it's probably safe to say that most TV viewers watch considerably more, that's still fifteen hours of content (eleven hours if you factor in commercials).
Netflix + Hulu Plus: Sixteen bucks a month gets you a fuckton of content, far more than you could possibly go through. Damn good value.
Going to the movies: Sixty bucks a month gets you into six movies (ish; prices vary). At a typical 1:30 a movie (and that's lowballing), that's at least nine hours of content, probably more depending on what's in theaters.
Buying new games: Sixty bucks a month gets you one game, generally six to eight hours of content for a single player campaign, possibly far more if its got good multiplayer or serious replay value (which most games don't don't).
What am I getting at? For every Left 4 Dead or Call of Duty with a reason to keep playing it far beyond a single run through the campaign, there's dozens of Bioshocks and Uncharteds, which may be good, but just don't have as much potential time-spending to them as other media. A large part of the reason behind the success of recent indie bundles, free to play games, and even flash game sites like Kongregate and Newgrounds, is that people perceive it as much higher value than AAA games.
Another factor to consider is customer risk. If I spend eight bucks on a Netflix subscription and I don't like the first show or movie I put on, I can watch something else, without having to pay again. If I don't like a show on TV, I can change the channel. If I find a flash game online I don't like, I can always move onto another one. Hell, even a brand new movie in the theaters is a relatively small loss if I end up hating it. If I spend sixty bucks on Aliens: Colonial Marines, however, at best I can hope to make back a fraction of that (typically less than half) selling it back to Gamestop, or on eBay, etc... OR NOTHING AT ALL IF IT NEEDS ACTIVATED ON ORIGIN OR STEAM. This makes games a pretty high-risk investment that consumers are a lot less likely to be comfortable.
This is one area where Humble Bundles were really clever; they offer the chance to spend next to nothing, and increase your payment later. I can be a complete dick and buy five games for only a dollar, and then if I like them give the developers more money. Most people probably don't do this unless a really appealing beat-the-average game is added, but the ability is there. This makes the games very low risk, and puts consumers in a position where they don't have to worry about wasting a lot of money on something they might not like.
tl;dr - AAA games are high risk, low value purchases. Throwing money at graphics and presentation (especially when done at the expense of gameplay, such as with Medal of Honor Warfighter) and then raising the price to match exacerbates this problem. Fix this, or at the very least be willing to accept smaller profit margins so you can lower prices, if you want to reach a larger market.
P.S. Thanks
Netflix + Hulu Plus: Sixteen bucks a month gets you a fuckton of content, far more than you could possibly go through. Damn good value.
Going to the movies: Sixty bucks a month gets you into six movies (ish; prices vary). At a typical 1:30 a movie (and that's lowballing), that's at least nine hours of content, probably more depending on what's in theaters.
Buying new games: Sixty bucks a month gets you one game, generally six to eight hours of content for a single player campaign, possibly far more if its got good multiplayer or serious replay value (which most games don't don't).
What am I getting at? For every Left 4 Dead or Call of Duty with a reason to keep playing it far beyond a single run through the campaign, there's dozens of Bioshocks and Uncharteds, which may be good, but just don't have as much potential time-spending to them as other media. A large part of the reason behind the success of recent indie bundles, free to play games, and even flash game sites like Kongregate and Newgrounds, is that people perceive it as much higher value than AAA games.
Another factor to consider is customer risk. If I spend eight bucks on a Netflix subscription and I don't like the first show or movie I put on, I can watch something else, without having to pay again. If I don't like a show on TV, I can change the channel. If I find a flash game online I don't like, I can always move onto another one. Hell, even a brand new movie in the theaters is a relatively small loss if I end up hating it. If I spend sixty bucks on Aliens: Colonial Marines, however, at best I can hope to make back a fraction of that (typically less than half) selling it back to Gamestop, or on eBay, etc... OR NOTHING AT ALL IF IT NEEDS ACTIVATED ON ORIGIN OR STEAM. This makes games a pretty high-risk investment that consumers are a lot less likely to be comfortable.
This is one area where Humble Bundles were really clever; they offer the chance to spend next to nothing, and increase your payment later. I can be a complete dick and buy five games for only a dollar, and then if I like them give the developers more money. Most people probably don't do this unless a really appealing beat-the-average game is added, but the ability is there. This makes the games very low risk, and puts consumers in a position where they don't have to worry about wasting a lot of money on something they might not like.
tl;dr - AAA games are high risk, low value purchases. Throwing money at graphics and presentation (especially when done at the expense of gameplay, such as with Medal of Honor Warfighter) and then raising the price to match exacerbates this problem. Fix this, or at the very least be willing to accept smaller profit margins so you can lower prices, if you want to reach a larger market.
P.S. Thanks
While this is sound advice, there's some credence to the idea that it won't work. I read an article on Forbes' website the other day discussing EA and their recent dishonor of winning the WCIA Golden Poo again. In it the author discussed that EA is really in a pretty impossible position at the moment. They've spent much of the last decade destroying their credibility and rapidly expending the goodwill of their customers, so much so that there's almost nothing left. For EA, right now, attempting to change their business model and become a consumer-friendly company that doesn't try to nickel-and-dime their consumers will quite possibly kill them. They need time to rebuild their customer goodwill, time to roll back their insane DRM schemes and remove their moronic microtransactions from full-priced games.Sight Unseen said:
During this time they will sell fewer units because of ruined loyalty, and every time they let up the controls, they WILL lose money, money that won't be reproduced in a direct correlation with sales because everyone hates them. At this point, if they change their model they will hemorrhage money for at least a few years until people start liking them again. However, they're already losing market share rapidly with their current practices. Basically, this double bind will see that EA in the next few years will either be humbled and try to regain their footing, or else wither and die slowly (or quickly depending on how things go for them).
I'm fairly sure that less people have smart TVs than play video games, especially seeing as though those smart TV owners probably don't use them for gaming. To be honest, if they moved away from games entirely and worked on this instead, I would be think "Well, they're somebody else's problem now" but I don't think they'll leave, as much as I want them to.
EA should really try to make amends with it's current customer base and maybe then sell more games, but instead they're giving up.
EA should really try to make amends with it's current customer base and maybe then sell more games, but instead they're giving up.